Candidate removed from ballot over English rule

Posted: January 27, 2012 - 12:47am

The Associated Press

YUMA, Ariz. -- A judge has ruled that a city council candidate in Arizona must be removed from the ballot due to lack of English proficiency.

The ruling came after the San Luis City Council approved a motion Jan. 13 asking for verification that Alejandrina Cabrera meets the requirement of a state law that any person holding office in the state, a county or city must speak, write and read English.

The Yuma Sun reported the removal stemmed from a Dec. 14 complaint made by former mayor Guillermina Fuentes that Cabrera isn't fluent in English.

Fuentes claimed she has acted as an interpreter for Cabrera.

Yuma County Superior Judge John Nelson ordered Cabrera's name stricken from the March ballot after Wednesday night's court hearing.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Unjustified and prejudice; because of the fact that most of the people in Yuma, Arizona speak spanish. Sounds to me the law on English only is bias and unfair/unjust, to that Spanish speaking region of the State. Some legal firm should ' challenge ' the unfair law and this is a good case to use.

You seem to forget the fact that Yuma, Arizona, is inside the borders of the United States where English is the predominate language. I guess if the law on English only is bias, unfair, and unjust then the laws in Mexico and the rest of Central and South America that allow for Spanish only are unjust also.

By your logic that means that any where in the United States that a particular large group of people speak a language other than English they should be allowed to make that their predominate language for that area. Talk about mass confusion and misunderstanding not to mention the cost for translation and etc.

That is why most countries have passed laws making one language as the predominate language to avoid all the confusion and cost of multiple languages being used.

If this law is challenged, I hope it results in a federal law that makes English the predominate language of the United States.

Well said Americanfirst. There is nothing wrong with knowing more than one language. I am fluent in Spanish and English,I can read, write and speak fluently in both languages. However I speak Spanish only with my wife,family,close friends,and people that I know that speak only in Spanish. However English is the most prominent Language I speak. I live in these here United States and I strongly believe that English is our official language and in public English is the language that should be spoken. And one more thing,if a person can read and write in Spanish,then English should be just as easy to learn also.

Actually, what I meant is that when a state makes a law where one specific language becomes the official language, it outlaws the other languages.

When a state or a nation imposes an Official Government Language upon a people , the other languages are outlawed and it opens the door for Official Abuses, Punishments and Oppression. All this is Discrimination against the native people and their customs and language. If that's what you advocate, then you are an ' Oppressor of Your Own People; and if you are an elected official and I lived there I would make sure to ' boot-you out of office '. I would gather my people and vote folks like you out !

In the case of the City Council person accussed of not being proficent in English, it's obvious the newly elected Mayor is vandictive and obviously an ' Oppressor '. So good luck, the poor folks down there need it.

It's understood that English is the predominant language in the United States. It has been so for 175 years. Therefore, the only reason to pass a law making English the Official Language, seems to me, is for the purpose of punishing those that speak other languages; to officially discriminate and oppress a population.

Which in the the South Western United State that would be mostly Spanish Speaking people. It would throw us back to the days in the 1950's when teachers in schools would shame little mexican kids, spanked them and punished them for simply speaking their native language.

I believe you are the oppressor since you want to have your way against the majority of the people. No language is outlawed by passing a law making one language an official language. It simplifies things and cuts down on confusion in translation and saves millions of dollars printing everything in multiple languages. Like I said before your demand only opens a can of worms. If you get your way, then others should get their way. That means we could have as many as twenty different languages being used in the United States. Right now English is the "unofficial" predominate language of the United States and all government business is conducted in English. Your way would cause everything to be printed in at least twenty different languages and how long would it be before there would be a challenge to have translators for all the languages used in the United States in congress while it is in session.

Common sense shows there has to be a national language that anyone coming to this country will be expected to learn. There are very few countries that I know of that have not passed some law making a particular language the national language.

If a country outlaws a language, it means it against the law to speak or write or use that language. Making a language the official language of the country simple means that all business and such will be conducted in that language. It does not stop anyone from speaking or writing or using a different language, but if they conduct business it must be in the official language to keep things uniform.

I tell you what, you get Mexico and all the Central and South American countries have laws making Spanish or some other language their official language to rescind those laws and then you argue your case.

Our Country has function just find without making a specific language the Official Law. I never did mention ' printing anything ' ; public policy can be made and followed without resorting to ' Legal-Locking and binding laws that have the impact and potential for abuse and discrimination. That's all I have been saying.

In other words, let's leave the language issue along. Everything has been working fine for years and years; and we have made some long strides in the field of Civil Rights...why open the can of worms of ' Discrimination and Official Abuses'?

What does other countries and their law has to do with our country's liberties , freedoms and rights ? We know other countries oppress their people; as an everyday common fair; we in America are suppose to be different. We love Freedom, Liberty and the Pursue of Happiness....for all people ! We are not suppose to be in the business of making oppressive and discriminatory laws. Because anytime a law is passed it is to benefit someone at the expense of others. I guess some people get elected to office and they think that the first thing to do it pass laws, for the sake of 'just passing laws'. Well, that's not Ameican. We believe in limited government by the people and for the people; not just for those in power.

I do not see how you can connect making English the official language with discrimination, official abuses, and civil rights violation. If you go to live in Germany you learn to speak German. If you go to live in France you lean to speak French. If you go to live in Japan you learn to speak Japanese. No one doing this starts carrying on about their civil rights or discrimination or official abuses. It is so simple to understand so why are you finding it so hard to comprehend. It is considered common knowledge that if you come to the United States you learn to speak English.

Your first post throws down the gauntlet about the Arizona law, so what do you want. Most states if not all have laws like Arizona.

There has never been a need to pass a federal law for making English the official language. People accepted it, but now there seems to be more and more people are challenging it so it is time to make it official.

When a lot of Germans came to Texas, it was discussed that the official language of Texas be German. It was also discussed that government documents be made in German. Obviously, this didn't happen and you don't hear a lot of people speaking German in Texas. They assimilated and became proud, hard-working Americans. Some groups have a harder time assimilating than others.

It didn't take a law to make the immigrants speak and read English, but they were also pushing their children to become "more American".

English is the defacto "official language" of the United States. Mrs. Cabrera doesn't meet the stated qualification (i.e., English proficiency) of holding public office in Yuma, AZ. The question is, is the state law constitutional? The US Supreme Court may/will rule on that eventually. Knowing more than one language never hurt anybody. Was Mrs. Cabrera aware of this Arizona law requirement BEFORE she ran for public office? Were ANY of the people that voted for her aware of this requirement? NOW she knows. Now THEY know. Knowing more than one language where-ever one lives in the world never hurt anybody. It's called knowledge/skill.

Being bilingual never kept anybody out of office. Both parties love Spanish-speakers in their ranks to pander to Hispanics, and it certainly is an advantage to speak multiple languages fluently. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Ms. Cabrera wants to work in a capacity in which government policy is made and carried out in English. She should learn to speak it if she wants to be effective at this position. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to foot the bill for translation costs, especially when the economy is in the tank. That alone is enough of a reason that the law should stand.

Someone mentioned the way Hispanics were treated in our area schools in the past. My grandmother once shared with me how cruelly she was treated when she was growing up here, which is why none of her children learned Spanish at home. That is a terrible legacy, but again it has nothing to do with the current issue. Ms. Cabrera isn't being bullied, beaten, or harmed in any way. She failed to satisfy reasonable and relevant qualifications for a certain job. If she learns English, she will be able to lawfully attempt to fill the position, despite still being Hispanic. I fail to see wrongdoing here in either the law or its application. If job qualifications are to be legally left up to applicants, please let me know so that I can begin applying for CEO jobs and threaten lawsuits if I don't get them.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

What about a visually impaired person not being able to read anything but Braille?

Individuals of either group who ran for public office would probably need an interpreter to communicate effectively in verbal and/or written formats with their constituents and others.

For adults, intelligence, general cognitive ability, and the ability to learn a second language in adulthood are not strongly correlated, as far as I know.

Spanish speaking immigrants follow the pattern of past immigrant groups. Foreign immigrants/naturalized citizens, tend to not be able to learn English very well, unless they started learning English early in life. First generation, born in the USA, citizens tend to be bilingual, and second generations tend to be monolingual English speakers.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

I see your point on people with disabilities and the need to accommodate that, but not speaking English is a "fixable" disability without the need for multiple surgeries and/or a miracle, and IMO that makes a difference.

Obviously, the above applies to Caucasians as well. I wouldn't be against an English proficiency test requirement for native speakers, either. Most of the folks most adamant about language issues make your last post look like a doctoral dissertation when they attempt to write.

smadrid's points are spot-on in my opinion.
If Ms. Cabrera wished to enroll at any school or university would she not be required to be proficient in the English language to earn her degree...even if it was an open-admissions community college?
Knowing multiple languages is a big plus in this day and age, and I recon it always has been. Language is powerful and dear to us. However, to have a common language, official or not, in which to conduct business and important matters with efficiency and expediency is what's at issue here. It is a skill that she does not have and it is very important for this type of job.
While not knowing a language is very limiting to one's opportunities in the real world, it is not the same as a disability. The distinction between the two are so often confused and misrepresented that, through good intentions, we further hold people back by not creating more incentives and avenues for them to learn English.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

It may just be me, but I see some real similarities as well as differences.

Some folks can see and hear, but cannot learn any language at all.

Rearrange the sentence above any way you want to, and it still works.

To learn a language well, extensive exposure in infancy and later is optimal, and the ability to learn a language decreases in childhood.

If a child has not learned a language by the onset of puberty, it is unlikely that child will ever learn a language. If a child has not learned a second language about as early, it is much more difficult for that child to learn a second language, and, IMO, many adults are unable to learn a second language.

View them as lingually challenged, if you would, though they may be the norm.

Some visually and auditorily impaired folks have had their vision repaired. However, because they did not see or hear early in life, correcting the mechanisms of vision or hearing did not overcome the fact that the visual and auditory cortices were not stimulated during early development. The eyes could see, and the ears could hear, but the brain could not interpret the information.

It might not take operations for me to learn a foreign language now, but it might very likely take putting myself into a learn or die situation to be successful at it.